2016 (12) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 52,675/- the issue of credit, on steel structural, etc., has already been decided in favour of appellant by the Tribunal in M/s India Cements Ltd., Vs CCE [2016 (6) TMI 1143 - CESTAT HYDERABAD]. With regard to credit on technical documentation as the same has been related to import of technical documents as dutiable goods and, CVD paid thereof credit of CVD suffered cannot be denied. With regard to remaining items, they all fall within the ambit of eligible input services prior to 01.04.2011. CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Sh. G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. P.S. Reddy, Authorised Representati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Plates etc. 21,98,828/- 3. Credit on various input services like soil investigation, rent-a-cab, crane rental charges, charges for placement of shift-incharge, delivery order fee etc. 3,99,492/- 4. Credit of service tax paid on civil construction work for AAC Plant 25,31,745/- 5. Credit of service tax paid on supply of structural steel and construction of pre-fabricated building 22,81,382/- Total 80,52,675/- 2. In respect of technical documentation Ld. Counsel submits that customs duty and CVD have been discharged on them as goods under Chapter 49 of Customs Tariff Act. With regard to credit on steel structurals, steel pipes etc., these items have been used for fabricating silos and storage tanks. With regard to various input s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the Tribunal in the above cited case of M/s India Cements Ltd., Vs CCE, Hyderabad in Final Order No. A-30513/2016 wherein the Tribunal held as under: 6. The major thrust by department is on the dictum laid by Larger Bench of Tribunal which held that Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, inserted vide Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT), dated 07-07-2009 is clarificatory in nature and has retrospective effect. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs A.P.P.Mills Ltd, 2013(291) ELT 585(Tri-Bang) observed that the judgment laid in Vandana Global Ltd case (supra) is no longer good law as the view of the Tribunal's Larger bench was taken much before the Hon'ble Apex court decided the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X